> -----Original Message----- > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Joel M. > Halpern > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 4:07 PM > To: Sheng Jiang > Cc: <v6...@ietf.org>; draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org; > ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than > locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops- > semantic-prefix-03 > > If I am reading this correctly, in the end this is riven by the fact that > existing boxes > can easily filter on addresses (although it will take a lot of filters), but > can not apply > ACLs to DSCPs or extension headers?
The current boxes can do both ACL filtering as well as DSCP mangling, but as mentioned earlier the DSCP bits cannot be trusted, so a markdown/re-marking is required potentially involving DPI. Maintaining ACLs is also time consuming. Semantics can help to put the burden on the originator, so he has to pick the right address/prefix according to the semantics to access a service. The edge box could use an ACL (potentially network wide) to match certain bits only to allow the packet to reach the service as well as to apply the defined QoS policy. > It seems like what we need is a draft that clearly explains why trying to > shoehorn this > information into the address is a bad idea, rather than trying to defend the > choice. > (Your emails seem to vary between the two stances.) > > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/3/2013 3:57 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > > I have to say the hierarchical assignment is a such great way to waste > > address space or prefix bit. I cannot real see much benefits or use > > cases of it. Why may home site 3 subordinate routers? How many subnets > > or devices may a /48 prefix serve in this model? > > Cheers, > > Sheng Cheers, Ales -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
